[whatwg] Table integrity and conformance

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2006, at 21:31, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> > I think cells extending (via colspan/rowspan) into columns or rows that
> > contain no cells other than extended cells should be at least a SHOULD
> > NOT, maybe a MUST NOT.
> 
> Wouldn't it be sufficient and more desirable to require each row to have at
> least one cell that starts on that row and each column to have at least one
> cell that starts in that column? (By starts I mean having the top left corner
> there.)
> 
> This would allow tables like this:
> 112
> 344
> and
> 12
> 13
> 43
> (Where numbers denote cells so that 11 means a cell spanning two columns.)

What's the difference?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'